Talk:Hittites/Archive 1

Spelling[edit]

The Hittite names were spelled inconsistently: The final -s is the Nominative and should either be present all the time, or not at all. I think not at all. "sh" and "s" are not distinguished. So either it should be "Suppiluliuma and Mursili" or "Shuppiluliuma and Murshili", but not "Suppiluliuma and Murshili". "S" is preferable for simplicity, although we cannot be sure wether the pronunciation was closer to /s/ or to /sh/. -- dab 16:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hatti has been deemed a bogus name by the powers that be. Lir 16:06 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

Hatti isn't bogus, and it would be great to have an article here on the land of Hatti. The problem is that it isn't the same thing as the Hittite empire, it is just the core territories thereof, and so the two shouldn't be identified. And, btw, just because they are from Hatti doesn't make them "Hattites".

The word nesili isn't strictly the name of the "Hittite" language; it means "in X", where X is the native name of the language. X is occasionally rendered Nesite in the modern literature. --B.Bryant 07:07 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've never seen "Nesite" in the modern literature. However, I do see the term as you describe it on page 55 of Colin Renfrew's Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (ISBN 0521386756).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521386756/ref=sib_aps_pg/104-9967348-4159163?p=S020&checkSum=HJ6sk%2FKSQQM2X1iQ4lA2GlvDkCmt9JU%2FrzjWWxvumDk%3D&keywords=Hattic#reader-link

-Ben

It took me about a minute to find it in H. A. Hoffner's "The Hittites and Hurrians" (chapter IX of some book that I can't easily identify because I only have a reproduction of that chapter in a course pack). — B.Bryant 22:56, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Any juicy quote that goes to the heart of what Hoffner thinks of Hittites and Hurrians? This entry needs to be pinned to some professional sources and references. Wetman 01:53, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll have to read it again. I've got a big pile of source material that I'll try to work into the article slowly. — B.Bryant 02:09, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone would re-write this page so that it sounds like it was actually about the Hittites rather than an exercise in biblical exegesis. — B.Bryant 23:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Um, Amen to that! I put the biblical POV in a section separate from the archaeology, hoping we could treat part of this as history. Wetman 01:53, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hattic Hattians Not the same as Nesite Hittites[edit]

RickK seems intent on suppressing the fact that Hattians did not speak Nesite but a language which is most often classsed as related to North Caucasian Languages in a hypothetical linguistic grouping known as Hetto-Iberian. Neither of these peoples can be classified as Canaanite which is universally accepted to be a northeastern Afroasiatic language. Just wanted readers to be aware. Zestauferov 13:38, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, he just wants to remove the reference to a language family of dubious validity, which, BTW, isn't of particular interest to an article about Hittites, even if it happens to be real. — B.Bryant 13:59, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How can the language of the Hattians whose name is responsible for their confusion with the Biblical Hittites, not be relevant to clarifiying the issue of the Hittites? I am honestly baffled by such (appologies my brain isn't letting me find another more appropriate phrase with less negative connotations) willful ignorance.Zestauferov 14:08, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Read for comprehension and that problem will go away. — B.Bryant 14:27, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

@Bobby D. Bryant. There are nicer ways to establish a first encounter than to call someone a whinger. @RickK the passage I have edited was sloppy and still remains poor but my etids were not controvercial. So what is your problem dude? :o) ?Zestauferov

RickK I would like to remind you of the policies concerning disputes. Your continued reversions without any attempt to discuss is a violation of policy. This is the last time I am going to attempt to post a clarification of the passages anyway originally written by myself. If you revert again without explaination how about bringing in arbitration?Zestauferov 12:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That whole section is going to disappear in (hopefully) a few days when I finish another project and have time to re-write the whole article to organize it better and establish it on the basis of scholarly results rather than hearsay and biblical legend. (BTW, an encyclopedia is no place for a "highly personal conjecture".) That personal conjecture needs to be removed regardless of whose it is. — B.Bryant 13:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh I get it. Sorry I did not realise that you had two IDs RickK which do you prefer to be called by Rick or Bryant? The phrase "highly personal conjecture" was put in by someone else (probably one of my critics). I did not remove it to steer clear of what has been recently called in policy discussions discussions "troll-feeding". Back to the points 1) I personally do not believe there is any connection between the Biblical Hittites and the popular Hittites, but the argument that there is a connection like the one currently described in the article is the response people who believe in the connection have given me in the past which is why although I don't believe it I included it to cover all POVs without bias (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). 2) You still have not answered why you wish to offer no info about the Hattians origin despite them being the reason the Nesites (and Hattians) became mistaken as biblical Hittites. 3) Why do you have to re-write it? Are you incapable of editing? Don't you know wiki is supposed to be a community of editors?Zestauferov 15:04, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can someone explain why an article on the Hittites needs to make statements about Hattic speakers? Leaving aside whether the statements are valid, aren't they redundant? I mean, we don't summarize Mexican history in an article on the United States, do we? Benwbrum 23:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kings of Nesites (who were speakers of luwi) conquered Lands of Hatti, what we call Inner-East Anatolia today around 2nd millenium and eventually they started to call themselves Kings of Hatti (after two kings passes) because Hattusa was the richest and strongest city-state in the region though nesa was just a small town. Later the name King of Hatti is used by the surrounding nations (Egyptians, Troians, Kashka, Asurians) in stead of the original name Nesans or Nesites(just like todays Hungary where is ruled by Hungarians(Magyars) or Bulgaria where is rulled by Bulgarians not Bulgars).Even Kadesh teatry was signed by using title "King of Hatti" So the mistake is not in Bible, in fact there is no mistake jsut a confusion between two people of ancient Anaotlia.

!?! because Hittites & Hattians were originally thought to be the same (confusion of Hattians with the biblical "children of Heth" led to the Nesites becomming known as Hittites) and in the case of many (e.g. RickK) are still inseperable (hence Rick thinks I have said Hittites spoke a Hetto-Iberian language). Hence some clarification needs to be delt with here. I fear RickK's main reason for covering up the info is that it means he has made a mistake in accusing me of making up the Hetto-Iberian theory and of saying the Hittites spoke a Hetto Iberian language neither of which are true.Zestauferov 23:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"children of Heth" doesn't clarify anything. Are Americans Georgites because they are "children of George Washington"? The entry deals succinctly with these naming issues concerning "Hittites" --which is the subject of this entry. Wetman 23:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ok try this. Not so long ago Hittites only existed in the bible. They were those people the bible called the "Children of Heth". One day someone discovered a culture north of where the biblical Hittites should have been and the land discoered was called Hatti. People were very excited because it sounded like Heth and so they named these people after tyhe biblical Hittites. Later it was discovered that the new Hittites were actually un-rellated to the people of the land of Hatti and more serious investigators criticized the identification of Hatti with Heth just because they sounded similar. Thus in the end there emmerged three peoples. Once again the Biblical Hittites were unknown. There was also the exciting early indo-european Nesite nation (now commonly but mistakenly known as the biblical hittites) and an obscure aboriginal nation of Hatti who spoke a Hetto-Iberian language. Bible-believers brought a 4th people into the discussion when they insisted that the Akkadian-speaking traders who had been in the area from the earliest times must have been the biblical Hittites and so the debate rages on unto this day. Can you see the relevance of it all now?Zestauferov 00:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. The Hattites were the "owners" of Hattusas before the Hittites. This will need to be explained in the article, but speculations about their language family should go in an article about them, if it belongs in Wikipedia at all. &mdash B.Bryant 09:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Did you miss the point that it is because of what we now call Hattians that the Nesites who conquered the area became confused with the Biblical hittites? And how do we know the Nesites and the hattians are not the same? Because Nesite is Indo-European and Hatti is more similar to North caucasian languages than anything else these days. I think this is very relevant for any article clarifying the Hittite issue.

Well, you're wrong, for reasons I've explained at least twice. (Wrong about the need to go off on tangential speculation about the linguistic affiliation of the Hattic language(s), that is. A brief mention of the Hattites will suffice, along with a "see also" if we have an article on them. Also, notice that the "confusion" is over the name of the "Hittite" language, not the name of their kingdom, which continuted to be called "Het" or the like, both by themselves and their foreign correspondents, presumably because of its base in Hattusus and co-location with the former Hattic state. A sort of analogy can be had in the fact that we still call England "England", despite the Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Vikings, and French.) — B.Bryant 17:30, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are being a little bit silly. Of course you have to mention in the artivle how we know Hattians & Nesites were not the same and the obly way we know is because of thier language affiliations. But I can see you will not budge so there is no future in pointing this out to you. Do ypur best O will edit it later if necessary.Zestauferov 01:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If there's two to four separate people to whom the name Hittite has been applied, why doesn't this article distinguish between them? Really it should have separate sections for the biblical Hittites and the empire of Suppiluliumas et al., and maybe should even be a disambiguation page.

That is one of the sections I will add when I rework the page, hopefully within a week. — B.Bryant 09:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But there aren't separate peoples. The "Biblical" Hittites, perceived from the vantagepoint of Israel, were the local representatives of a culture that actually had its capital at Hattusa in north-central modern Turkey.

Could you please state your reference for this statement? Are you refering to modern Israel?Zestauferov 16:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hebrew views of Hittites had limitations, as Greek views of Scythians had limitations. Our English-language name for these people is "Hittite." That's not what they called themselves: just as Japan is "Nippon" etc etc.

Very poor analogy since Japan comes from the english pronunciation of the Russian letters which imitate in Russian pronunciation & stress the sound Nippon (now called Nihon), whereas Hittite as you point out is an exonym which coes from assuming Nesites to be the same as Hattians and that the latter were mentioned in the bible as Hittites.Zestauferov 16:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is no authentic confusion. As ever, there is a certain amount of history to be derived from the Tanach. There is a certain amount of (mute) history derived from archaeology. And a certain amount of information can be derived from linguistics-- once a language has been translated. Then a house of cards of fantasies about culture connections, primal languages, identical deities etc etc can be built up that is increasingly speculative. An earlier indigenous culture had previously existed at Hattusa. What's the real problem here? Not distinguishing between what is known from what is surmised Any work on disentangling the simple capsule description of what is generally agreed currently about Hittites will be very welcome. Wetman 10:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To make ourselves clear, let's just decide not to enter any statement that isn't simply literally true, otherwise we quickly blur things into a muddle. Let's not say "some people' let's say who. Let's not use a category like "bible-believers" that doesn't mean anything. Identify who, where, when. Don't say "the bible says," don't refer to "people were very excited". Then you won't say "there emerged three peoples' or "not so long ago Hittites only existed in the Bible." The entry itself will become clear if every statement is literally factual. Don't express guesses in the form "it was discovered." Don't use the passive voice. I just can't help beyond that. When I have time I'll go through the page history and see if any useful material is lost. Wetman 05:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An edit, repeated here for clarity:

"...they were seen, from the viewpoint of the traditions of the Hebrews, later written and edited in the 7th century BCE, as a small Canaanite group" Any issue with this statement as straightforward interpretation?

"Archaeology has shown that the center of the culture we call "Hittite" was in fact far to the north, in modern-day Turkey." Is there an issue with this statement?

Can we please have a title for the 1998 book by T. Bryce that is said to state that Hittites aren't Hittites. And can we have a synopsis of why Bryce says so? That's a part of the confusion here.

I think the disputed/confusing statement is this: If there is any connection between these and the Biblical Hittites, they might have been the Akkadian traders centered there later adopting Hattic before the north-western Indoeuropean rulers came to dominate the area. However, there is as of yet little basis for any connection between the Biblical Hittites and the Popular Hittites. This combines multiple surmises and creates confusion. Can't this statement be made clear? What is the problem here? Wetman 10:53, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Hittite people, language and culture remained as late as the 5th century AD, as they went on living as discrete and diverse small independent states in central and southeastern Anatolia. - straight from the article, and easily found in most texts. The author of the disputed statement may want to say whether these city-states are what he has in mind, or something else. Btw, I haven't read the book so can't be sure, but The Kingdom of the Hittites (ISBN 0199240108) looks like a good candidate for the relevant book.

The writer you quote seems to be thinking about the Neo-Hittite successor states in northern Syria and surrounding regions, though of course the ebb and flux of empires would have erased them long before 500 CE. (A quick check of Gurney suggests 1200 years before.) There were also some kingdoms in western Anatolia, though they were of the descendents of the other IE Anatolians rather than the Hittites, and they too disappeared about 1000 years earlier than whoever you are quoting claims. — B.Bryant 16:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah! Didn't notice the AD, and it is plainly a typo for BC. Whatever else needs to be done, that should be changed, and I will do so immediately. The question still stands as to whether the Neo-Hittite cities are being referred to.

Here are some excerpts from: Mendenhall, George E. The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973. ISBN 0-8018-1654-8. on the subject of Anatolian Hittites in Canaan. Mendenhall is professor emeritus of Near Eastern languages at the University of Michigan.

"...we have every reason to believe that an increasing number of peoples from the north came into the south-eastern Mediterranean area in the Late Bronze Age. In fact, it seems impossible to point to any period within the known history of Palestine when we do not have evidence for intimate contacts with Anatolia, whether it be pre-pottery Neolithic, the Bronze Age, the Iron age or the nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire. ... When we look at other sites in the Palestinian-Syrian coastal and inland areas, we find ample evidence of the same kind of historical process. After the collapse of the Hittite Empire, the traditions and even proper names associated with Anatolia spread far to the west and to the south as well. The northern part of Syria was even called māt Hatti in Assyrian times, and as far south as Hama (even further south to Restan/Rustam) hieroglyphic Luwian writing is attested even as late as the seventh century B.C. Even by the Greco-Roman period, Luwian names persisted as far south as the Damascene... It is not adventuresome at all, then, to suggest that the biblical tradition is entirely correct in attributing to Cilician origin certain dominant population groups in several of the towns of Palestine and the area north of the Sea of Galilee."

Adding the remarkable parallels between Hittite and Deuteronomistic covenant forms, as well as the direct linguistic evidence mentioned above (Luwian is closely related to Anatolian Hittite) as well as much more provided by scholars such as Albright and Mendenhall, and the case for a difference between the biblical and Anatolian Hittites doesn't seem very convincing. Of course, NPOV demands it be left in, but the evidence otherwise is also going to be cited.Fire Star 04:34, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wetman: Your reversions of my edits are restoring (to my mind at least) a point of view regarding the identity of biblical/Anatolian Hittites. I posted some comments on the Hittite discussion page a while ago, and when there was no further discussion I changed the page a bit. I don't have a problem leaving your (and Brice's) opinion on the page, but I do have a problem with dismissive reversions of my attempt to smooth the waters. Let us discuss this. Fire Star 22:03, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) (pasted from User:Wetman page)

Text:"Although it has since been averred that the language and people commonly referred to as Hittite cannot actually be the same as the Biblical Hittites, following T. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, (Oxford 1999), the name has stuck for convenience sake." (I don't happen to share Bryce's POV myself, but there it is.) (In other words "Hittite" is simply a convention, nevertheless, sanctified by use, and issues over identities and names are irrelevant.)

Fire Star's text: "It has been averred that the language and people commonly referred to as Hittite is not actually be the same as the Biblical Hittites, following T. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford 1999), but many other scholars disagree."

IWho What Why: Identify scholars. Tell what they disagree about and why they do so. This "many scholars" is a smokescreen for the passive voice of non-attribution, like "It is claimed..." or "Legend has it...": it's played out. We expect a couple of good paragraphs. Meanwhile "the name has stuck for convenience sake." Why take any stand, until Fire Star has explained it all for us? Wetman 22:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

The Hatti land in Syria[edit]

Ugh. This debate has gone on long enough, & I think I have found the necessary information to settle the matter. I have learned that the Assyrians called the lands west of the Euphrates river "the Hatti land", an area that covers modern Syria & can be made to cover modern Lebanon, Israel & Jordan. They took up this usage apparently because the Hittites once controlled part of the region -- not because the land was settled by Caucasian/Eberite/Hatti peoples. (The Assyrians also called the northern kingdom of Israel "the sons of Omri"; should we then decide that Kings/Crhonicles is wrong in saying that Jeroboam founded the kingdom of Israel?)

After the fall of Troy, The Barbarians(AKA sea nations) continued till todays Palastine burning cities one after another also Hattusa was burned down by old rival Barbarians Kashka after their defeat Hittite(Nesan) nobles formed a new state in Syria (which was a part of empire before) today we call it Hittites of Syria which survived till 8th century BC though it was relatively weak and formed by city-states.

My source is, mostly, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. I can cite pages, if need be, but the usage is consistent.

That being the case, & seeing how the Assyrians were the dominant power or culture when the Pentateuch was first assembled, it's easily believable that some inhabitants of the area would refer to themselves as "Hittites". It's no more incongruous than the occasional practice of early African American pioneers stating that they were the "first white folk in these parts" -- opposing "white" to "Indian", that is. -- llywrch 00:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then "Hatti" is the Assyrian name for "Hittite" who called their language "Nesili" because that's where it was spoken (as we speak "English")? And Syria looked like the Hatti power-center, simply from the POV of people living well to the south and southeast of the rediscovered power center-- at the modern village of Boguskoy. Isn't that it? Is it really any more complicated than that? Hoping you'll work the information into the entry, Llywrch, with as much source as you can summon. (Does ANE Texts give a better reference than Easton's Dictionary for the references to "inscriptions" noted at Philistines too-- I hope?) Wetman 08:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While I've been meaning to post the references from ANET I mentioned above, it's proven a little harder to put them into a short, convincing shape than I had thought. However, I did recently find the following passage in Donald B. Redford's Egypt, Canaan and Isreal in the Ancient Near East (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 407. Discusssing the mention of Heth/Hittites in the Bible, Redford writes:

"Heth" is an allusion, not to the Hittites of the second millennium and their homeland, but ot the states of Syria collectively called Khatte by the Assyrians and Babylonians from the ninth to the sixth centuries B.C."

The examples I have found (a dozen from ANET, & one from Luckenbill's Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia) date from the reign of Tilgath-Pileser I (early 11th century BC) to Esarhaddon. While some could be understood as referring to the Anatolian homelands of the Hittites, most of them either clearly place the "Hattusa land" in what is modern-day northern Syria, or use the term so loosely as to apply to the entire Near East west of the Euphrates.

As for the implied confusion over Nesili/Hittite, it's no more confusing than asking why U.S. citizens, whose families have lived in the state of New Mexico for centuries, are speaking a language called Spanish. -- llywrch 01:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As an Abkhazian(nort Caucasus Nation i can say even still there are marks of similar language in Anatolia, Abkhazian is a very primitive language(compeared to Turkish and English) every word has meaning but some basic ones (ice means solid water, bear means thing to scare etc ) this means it didnt change much. also hittite language is the first known indo-european language very similar to Germanic then it is to Aryanic of today Canaanic cant be a relative to none of these languages due to it is african origin but of course there are many loan words from luwi(hittite language) to canaan even to modern languages to today(Asia and Aegea comes from Assuwa in luwi pointing western Anatolia Shores which is later used by phirigians and greeks then gave the name to the see and the continent.)

The Frame Fact Background[edit]

The beginnings of the Hittite civilisation has been traced to the merchant colonies established by the Assyrians in Asia Minor. From this contact the existing inhabitants of the area obtained technologies such as cuneiform writing and the use of the cylinder seal. The largest Assyrian colony was established at Kültepe (Karum Kanesh).
Assyrians called the lands west of the Euphrates "Hatti".
Nesili speakers (related to Luwian) became dominant in the region at a later date
In 1880 Archibald Sayce trying to make a connection with archaeological evidene and the bible saw one with (?Luwian?)hieroglyphic scripts found at Aleppo and Hamath in Northern Syria which matched the script on a monument at Bogazkoy by an Indo-European "People of the Land of Hatti". Sayce made the first connection between the ruins at Bogazkoy and the Canaanite-Hittites of the Bible, as until him (following the Biblical perspective) the center of Canaanite-Hittite power was considered to be in Syria.
For better or for worse the Nesili speakers have become known as the biblical Hittites.
The discovery of Hattian influences in Nesili is relatively recent leading to the idea that the aboriginal inhabitants were non Indo-european and non Afro-asiatic whose language has only ever been taken serioiusly as related to Circassian (of the North-West-Caucasian languages). For good or bad reasons this language has been called Hattian/Hattic in an attempt to distinguish it from Nesili-Hittite.
As of yet there is no evidence for the existence of the Canaanite-Hittites mentioned in the Bible.

Since writings about the Hitite empire in common circulation are about the Nesili speakers once this frame has been set the pursuing details must exclude the aboriginals and the Assyrians, and the Bible children of Heth and focus only on what has been discovered about the empire of the Nesili speakers.

Either that or the page should become a disambiguation.211.190.46.103 02:25, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Luwian hieroglyphics at Aleppo and Hamath? I'd be confused too... Wetman 02:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seems odd doesn't it. Maybe someone can find more detail about the specifics of Sayce's connection. I can only read Akkadian myself but some image links to compare glyphs would be nice. 211.190.46.103 02:54, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The comment "The beginnings of the Hittite civilisation has been traced to the merchant colonies established by the Assyrians in Asia Minor." Is just plain wrong, & I've either been lazy or cowardly not to have changed it before this. There were Assyrian trading stations in Anatolia in the earlier half of the 2nd millenium BC; the people they traded with were the Hittites. These Hittites arrived in Anatolia soemtime between 2500 BCE & 2000 BCE -- IIRC Trevor Bryce's work correctly.
Hieroglyphic Hittite (better known as Luwian; there's another daughter language whose name I don't recall off the top of my head) is later than Cuneiform Hittite. I don't know exactly what the point was of the Archibald Sayce article; ~~IIRC, most of the pioneering translation work of Hittite was done by German researchers.~~ I should have read the main article; it was a Czech linguist, Bedrich Hrozny. -- llywrch
The reason for the connection of Biblical Hittite == archeological Hittite == inhabitants of the Hattusa land goes back to the habit that West semitic languages (like Egyptian & Hebrew) were written without vowels. (Semitic languages are not my strong point, but the more I try to puzzle this problem out, the more sense it makes to me.) The ancient Egyptians called the Hittites the "Ht" (where the "h" has the same value as the "kh" in the Akkadian "Khatti"); I assume that the Hebrew name comes from a similar "Ht". Unfortunately the value of the original vowels were lost, & were later replaced with vowels that results with the modern "Hittite". -- llywrch 05:06, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So the hypothesis is that "HTI" (the Hebrew for Hittite is חתי) was never an endonym of any people, simply an exonym for the Indoeuropean Nesili speakers that was applied to them by nations like the Assyrians, Akkadians, Hebrews, Egyptians etc. -reason unknown. The pre-indoeuropean population of Hattusa (whoever they were, though having a linguistic influence on Nesili) being irrelevant to the question. A new (biblically concordant) perspective but interesting research so far.

You're partly right. The elite who ruled the Hatti land spoke Nesili -- & perhaps most of the population, IIRC Bryce's book, this point is still under discussion -- similar to my example above of inhabitants of Mexico speak Spanish. The Assyrians & Babylonians inverted this relationship: where ever the Nesili-speaking elite ruled, that was the Hatti-land which included modern-day Syria and Lebanon; this misunderstanding of "Hatti-land" became an exonym, to use your terminaology. So their usage (or the usage of the Egyptians, who apparently drew the same conclusions) influenced the early Hebrew usage. Once the empire of the Hatti-land was forgotten, later scribes had to guess how to vocalize "HTI", & guessed incorrectly.

As a caviat, this is my own theory of how the words are related, & so until it can be shown this is a published hypothesis in the secondary literature, it shouldn't appear in the article. -- llywrch 18:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Biblical Hittites by proxy?[edit]

Umm, why not? I have done some search in ANET as well, and the case appears good for claimimg that the Biblical Hittites simply are natives of the Syro-Palestinian area, the word being used by people east of the Euphrates. I have gathered as few samples (ANET = to James B. Pritchard, ed.: Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament, 3. edition, Princeton, 1969.).

Exhibit 1: Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 bce) meets the Hittite king (ANET, p. 275):

I departed from the country Bit-Adini and crossed the Euphrates at the peak of its flood by means of rafts made bouyant with inflated goatskin bottles. I advanced towards Carchemish. There I received from himself the tribute of Sangara, the king of the Hittites, amounting to: 20 talents of silver, [and so on].

Of course, we can only assume Sangara to be king of Carchemish, but possibly an over-king over more city-states in northern Syria. The main thing being though that we are in Syria, not in Anatolia.

Exhibit 2: Also Sargon II (721-705 bce) has the Hittites still living in Syria (ANET, p. 285):

Ia'ubidi from Hamath, a commoner without claim to the throne, a cursed Hittite, schemed to become king of Hamath, induced the cities Arvad, Simirra, Damascus and Samaria to desert me, made them collaborate and fitted out an army.

Note that Ia'ubidi is from Hamath, a city-state by the Orontes, so it appears that "Hittite" was a general term used for people in northern Syria, most likely with a derogatory implication.

Exhibit 3: An inscription relating events during the last year of king Nabopolassar of Babylon, the father of Nebuchadnezzar (The king of Akkad) tells us this from (ANET, p. 564):

Year 7, month Kislimu: The king of Akkad moved his army into Hatti land, laid siege to the city of Judah, and the king took the city on the second day of the month Addaru. He appointed a (new) king of his liking, took heavy booty from it and brought it into Babylon.

Note here that it is unclear, if Judah is considered part of Hatti land or not, it may have been thought that way, but it's not certain.

Exhibit 4: Even the Seleucid kings, while they were residing in Babylon, could speak of Hatti land. Here from a text of Antiochus I Soter (280-262 bce), where he shows his reverence for the Babylonian gods (ANET, p. 317):

I am Antiochus, the great king, the legitimate king, the king of the world, king of Babylon, king of all countries, the caretaker of the temples Esagila and Ezida, the first-born son of king Seleucus, the Macedonian, king of Babylon.

When I conceived the idea of (re)constructing Esagila and Ezida, I formed with my august hands when I was still in the country Hatti [= Syria] the first brick for Esagila and Ezida with the finest oil and brought it with me for the laying of the foundation of Esagila and Ezida. And in the month of Addaru, the 2oth day, the 43rd year (of the Seleucid era), I did lay the foundation of Ezida, the (only) true temple of Nebo which is in Borsippa.

So I think the case is strong, but it's of course a question of view towards the Bible. Is the Bible historically correct? Or is the Bible a - very - late construction?

--FreezBee 12:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to cheanup the mess in this page (I am new to this enterprise so please forgive my ingenuity 8-). The new page doesn't mention the "four people controversy" but neither did the original. I tried to keep all text and reorganize it as best as I could. However I could not make much sense of the following bits. Would please someone merge them into the proper places of the page, if appropriate? thanks...

Sayce made the first connection between the ruins at Bogazkoy/Boguskoy (Hattusa) and the Hittite state, as until that time following the Biblical perspective, the center of Hittite power was considered to be in Syria. Although it has since been averred that the language and people commonly referred to as Hittite cannot actually be the same as the Biblical Hittites, (this controversy needs to be presented in some more detail so that readers can follow it and form their own opinions)

The following statement is disputed : If there is any connection between these and the Biblical Hittites, they might have been the Akkadian traders centered there later adopting Hattic before the north-western Indo-european rulers came to dominate the area. However, there is as of yet little basis for any connection between the Biblical Hittites and the Popular Hittites. (reasons for these doubts need to be expressed)

In particular I fixed the bogus spelling "Boguskoy" for Bogazköy. I also moved all stuff about the Hittite *language* to the page with that name.
Jorge Stolfi 04:19, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nice Job Jorge. Nesili & Hattic deserve a mention if only as a link too so I put them in. @User:211.190.46.103 the summaries were useful but this is not the place for summarising new research. Zestauferov 15:02, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This page now dutifully notes that the (IE) Hittite *language* was called Nesilli by the (IE) Hittites (assuming that those headers in those tablets actually mean that). However I still don't see any reason to use the name "Nesites" or "Nesilli-Hitites" for the (IE) Hittites, much less for the (IE) Hittite kingdom. From what I have learned, the IE Hittites themselves called their core country "Hatti" and their kingdom "the kingdom of Hatti", and other people called them by similar names. Moreover, if they ever distinguished their ethnicity from their kingdom, it is more likely that they caled themselves "we, the Hattians" than "we, the Nesites".

Thus, independently of whether the IE Hittites are or are not the HTY of the Hebrew Bible, calling them just "Hittites" is definitely more correct than calling them "Nesites" or "Nesilli-Hittites". As others have pointed out, these two alternatives, besides being non-standard and confusing to most readers, are just as incorrect as calling the modern inhabitants of Mexico "Castillans" or "Castillan-Mexicans". Or, worse, like calling the modern inhabitants of Venice "Tuscans" or "Tuscan-Italians". If the term "Nesite" indeed meant anything to the IE Hittites, it may well have meant "native of the town of Nesa" and not a general term for "IE Hittite".

In fact, the only really questionable names here are "Hattian" and "Hattic". AFAIK, no one knows how the "Hattians" called their language, their nation, or their ethnicity. Although they apparently called the city of Hattusa and the region of Hatti by those (or similar) names, there seems to be no evidence that a *kingdom* with similar names existed before 1750 BC. Thus, while "Hattic" for the language is just as bad as any other name, "Pre-Hittite" may have been better than "Hattian" as a name for their culture. Anyway, that is water under the bridge now, so let's use those names for now...

Also note that (Cavalli-Sforza notwithstanding) the link between language, religion, people names, place names, nationality, and genetic continuity is very tenuous, especially for small tribes. Just because documents around Bogazköy stopped being written in non-IE "Hattic" and started being written in IE "Nesish", or that someone in Canaan declared himself a Hittite citizen, it is risky (to say the least) to draw conclusions about their attributes in other dimensions.

All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 21:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To contributors: I suggest that the intro section be kept as light as possible, and details be placed in the proper sections. In the intro, it seems enough to define the two meanings of "Hittites" (Archaological and Biblical) and point out that it is disputed whether they are the same or not.
Also I suggest that any further historical and archaological details be placed in chronological order when possible. If nothing else, it makes it easier to spot duplication of material or contradictions. As for interpretations, may I suggest that all the arguments pro and con be gathered into two separate blocks of text, rather than interleaved? Waffling between the two POVs is bad style and invites unending bboard-like exchanges...
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 05:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just a general comment. I was VERY interested to see the man who tried to defame me for stating that Hurrian had a substantial impact on Hebrew culture actually quotes from the author of standard reference for that field!! Well I am delighted but also dumbsmacked! By the way, excellent work Jeorge. Zestauferov 12:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

P.S. That many Biblical proper names (individual, group and place names) have no satisfactory Semitic etymology, but can be demonstrated to perhaps descend from Anatolian or North Syrian (Hurrian) onomastics, certainly is a fact, However this simply shows the extent of the Hurrian influence in the Hebrew traditions instead of illustrating any Nesili-Hittite influence in Canaan, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the IE Hittites. I would like to know the page number and edition of the book from which the Hittite inference is pulled to attach to this fact please. If I am wrong I will retract of course.Zestauferov 12:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, it seems best to omit the "Canaanites with non-Semitic names" argument altogether, since it does not cut either way.
On the other hand, the page defintely must record the fact that the identification of the IE Hittites (IEH) with Biblical Hitites (BH) is still a valid hypothesis and is accepted by many scholars. The evidence for "IEH = BH" may be only circumstantial, but so is the evidence for "IEH != BH". Besides, the IEH were unquestionably a major regional power in the Middle East, roughly at the right time, and had frequent contacts with the Egyptians on the other side of Palestine; so one would naturally expect them to be mentioned a few times in the Bible. In fact, I recall reading in Ceram's book that somewhere in the Bible there is a reference to "the armies of the Egyptians and the Hittites" in a context that suggests that they were seen by the Hebrew as comparable military powers.
As for placing too much weight on names and languages, please note that I am neither British nor Cappadocian. And I cannot honestly tell how many of my 1,329,227,995,784,915,872,903,807,060,280,344,576 ancestors who were alive at that time were Hurrian and how many were Mongolian. 8-)
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 17:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have created a separate page Hittites in the Bible containing all occurrences of the word "Hittite" in the OT, found with the help of an internet searching service. I used the King James version due to my language limitations, although it would have been best to use the Tanakh. Also I did not include references to the country ("Heth" in KJV) for lack of time. Corrections and additions would be most appreciated.
By the way, the reference to "Egyptian and Hittite armies" that I mentioned above is 2 Kings:7:6, and there are two references in the time of Ezra (ca 450 BC according to Wikipedia). After reading that and other mentions (such as Solomon's tributes and the geographical directions in Joshua) I am now inclined to believe that "IEH = BH". It seems compatible with all Biblical mentions and makes sense given the importance of the IE Hittites. The only strained item is the mention in Ezra, much after the end of their Empire. However, according to what is says in the "Demise" section, that doesn't seem so impossible.
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 03:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC) Hattusa was a major city in the Hittite empire, but Nesa was their home. Can anyone confirm this? Zestauferov 15:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am now rather unhappy with the opening paragraph of =Archaeological discovery= since it mixes names from several disparate sources as if they were the same thing, and offers a definition ("all the land west of the Euphrates etc.") which may well be just a disputed interpretation.
Jorge Stolfi 17:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the Babylonians & Assyrians (I know thea they used consonants only and the form was the same HTY), but I do know that the biblical land of the HTY includes SW Syria, Lebanon & parts of Israel. So I moved that comment there because it does seem relevant.Zestauferov 19:01, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Babylonians and Assyrians used a syllabic script. The people of Ugarit, the Canaanites, Hebrews, Arameans, and Egyptians used purely consonantal writing systems (except that the Ugaritic script distinguishes between )a, )i, and )u.) --BobGriffin-Nukraya 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the old references are to be mentioned at all in this section (which, note, is about archaeological discovery of the Anatolian Hittite civilization, not biblical exegesis), the sources should be separated and better identified.

I am also unhappy with the new header paragraph on the Biblical Hittites. The KJV uses both "Children of Heth" and "Hittites", at least in the Abraham sepulcher story, where the two terms are synonymous. If I read the new paragraph correctly, the Tanakh always uses "Children of Heth" and has no separate word for "Hittites". Then what term in KJV corresponds to Hebrew HTY?
Jorge Stolfi 17:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Under "The Biblical Hittites" or do you mean the third paragraph? There are two synonymous terms Children of Heth and HTY. HTY refers to the nation & Children of Heth refers to thepopulation. Just put the two terms next to each other. Zestauferov 19:01, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way it does not seem correct to say "the Canaanite Hittites" since (in KJV at least) the Canaanites are mentioned side by side with the Hittites; and while there were no more Canaanites by Solomon's time, the Hittites (which are explictly identified with the Hittites of the Conquest) were still a powerful kingdom.
Jorge Stolfi 17:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If we are using the bible as a reference then we have to use it properly Gen10:15 specifies who the Canaanites are. The term Canaanite is always used to mean "Canaanites in general" so if you read Hittites & Canaanites you should understand it as Hittites & Canaanites in general.Zestauferov 19:01, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Finally, I am unhappy that we are wasting so much energy in this "IEH = BH" question, which has little importance even to Biblical studies, while the rest of the page is still at the quasi-stub stage. Come on. Bible or not Bible, the IE Hittites were a major entity in the history of Middle East, and they deserve a major article focused on them. Where have Hittite sites been found? What constacts did they have with other states? What were their gods, society, knowledge, etc? What happened to them after their demise? (Peoples usually do not disappear, they only change names.)
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 17:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Me too, but I cannot help you there because I know very little about the Neites (IE-Hittites) except what relates to the Hurrians. Come on people. :-) Zestauferov 19:01, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(( Moved discussion to Talk:Hittites in the Bible page ))

biblical hittites[edit]

The following statement from that article is completely nonsensical: "Given the casual tone in which the Hittites are mentioned in most of these references, Biblical scholars have traditionally regarded them as a small tribe, living in the hills of Canaan during the era of the Patriarchs."

It appears to use the word "most" to mean "excluding any reference that contradicts this theory."

I suppose, 'traditionally' means 'before the discovery of the Hittite empire', i.e. in the 19th century. This is how I understand the passage, at least, and it seems not nonsensical at all. dab (ᛏ) 16:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removing the word "have" would seem to fix that problem, then, as "scholars have traditionally regarded" implies that they still do so, whereas "scholars traditionally regarded" implies that that regard is confined solely to the past. --Ray Radlein 22:17, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to fix it because I can't tell what it is supposed to say, but the biggest problem with the statement is that it suggests that looking at the totality of passages in the bible mentioning the Hittites would lead one to conclude that they were a small tribe. This is not true. The only way you'd get that impression is if you looked only at the passages that give that impression and ignored the ones that suggest otherwise.

There is an article Hittites in the Bible specifically for these references. The view of the Hittites from the Israelite perspective once loomed larger than it has during the last century or so, with the advent of archaeology. All that needs saying is "Some localized contacts with the outermost fringes of the Hittite empire, are recorded in the edited selection of traditions preserved as the Hebrew Bible." --Wetman 20:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That solution would work very well if you elimate commentary "edited selection of traditions preserved as." Just call it the Hebrew bible. The debate over what the Hebrew bible is and how it came to be should stay in other articles.

Neo-Hittite Kingdoms[edit]

Isn't this article rather dramatically weak on the subject of the neo-Hittite kingdoms of the 1200-700 BC period? Carchemish, for instance, is only mentioned in the article once, and that is in context of its initial conquest by the Hittites, with no mention of the long-lived neo-Hittite kingdom there. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I know enough about the subject to write a section on it, but there clearly should be one. john k 05:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These changes were not good ones[edit]

With all respect due to Tommiks for his hard work, I don't feel it was necessary or advisable to split this beautiful article up like this into three articles. It just doesn't seem to make real good sense to have separate articles chopped out of this one, on Hatti and the Neo-Hittites. This should be the one-stop page on Hittite history, the vast bulk of which occurred well in-between Hatti and the Neo-Hittites, and doesn't fit well on either side of this arbitrary division. We already had a separate page for Biblical Hittites, now there is not much left on this page. Somewhere along the line, we lost one pic completely. But most of all, such a drastic structural change should never have been effected without even so much as a word of discussion or consensus beforehand here on this talk page. The change needs to be discussed now, and my .02 is that we immediately return to the "full Hittites" version, ASAP. Comments? Codex Sinaiticus 06:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. john k 06:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did not aim to create a feeling of loosing the work. The text is linked with a menu. The linking chuncks of information under single menu is a very effective method. It should give a continious flow of information. If it does not, that menu can be improved. I was working on the anatolian cultures timeline, and just used the available structure of this article (without making any changes of the context) to divide into two distinct periods. I'm not historian. I'm using on my background on this issue and I thought, there was two distinct periods. If something is wrong help me out--tommiks 07:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline: (developing, it i sonly two hours old...) --tommiks 07:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the text. It might be better to develop a top and bottom menu and devide the story into three chuncks. I'm not going to change the main article, so if you do not like it we can easily revert it, however if you fallow the menu you can

find the individual sections. Hope this will make it better.--tommiks 07:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been over a month now since the history sections were chopped out of this page by Tommiks without any discussion beforehand, but it still bothers me. Noone else has voiced any support for doing it this way; the chopped-out articles are in some cases only a paragraph or two. I would much rather see at a minimum, the three articles History of Hattians and Hittites, History of the New Kingdom (a very bad and vague title for an Encyclopedia entry), and History of the Neo-Hittite Kingdoms (only one paragraph, not even a cat) all be merged into one "History of the Hittites" page; then if you really want to fill a sidebar with "History of the Hittites Series", we can easily find some goodies to go along with Hittite military oath by looking in Category:Hittite Empire. So, in light of the discussion and consensus so far, I intend to do something like this in the very near future. Regards, ፈቃደ 15:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really like {{History_of_Anatoloia}} (btw note the typo in the title) shown above. Is it still under development? I would like to point out that "-2500" is a bit early for the Old Hittite Kingdom. It should be shown as beginning around 1750 BC. The Kultepe texts could be shown as the earliest trace of Anatolian languages around 1900. dab (ᛏ) 16:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... very good point; being a template it should be easy to move to the correct spelling, but other corrections are also needed, 2500 is definitely way too early!!! ፈቃደ 16:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

likewise, the New Kingdom is too early. It should be ca. 1450 - 1200. dab (ᛏ) 21:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hittites and Amazons[edit]

- Were Amazons (of Greek mythology) the mutation of Hittites?

- Was Hippolyte, queen of Amazons, the mutation of Suppiluliuma I, king of Hittites?

- Was Myrine, queen of Amazons, the mutation of Mursili II, king of Hittites?

- Was Antiope, queen of Amazons, the mutation of Hantili, king of Hittites?

- Was Mytilene, princess of Amazons, the mutation of Muwatalli, king of Hittites?

Take account this note:

1) There was a town Amasia or Amaseia in Pontus in Eastern Anatolia.

2) The Amazons were supposed to be daughters of god Ares (in Greek mythology).

However, there was an river Iris or Thermodon, in their land.

--Ionn-Korr 18:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...I don't think so. Herodotus saw the Amazons as a Scythian type tribe living in that area in his own time - this doesn't fit very well with the Hittites. Plus, why would all the Hittite kings get sex-changed? john k 19:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer to that. It is a query I have, as well.

But, in Greek mythology:

Hittites get changed to Amazons
Arzawans get changed to Atlantes (of Diodorus)
Tyrrhenians (of Cyrnos/Corsica and Etruria) get changed to Sirens
Gorgons get changed to Karkisa or Carians
Graecians (of Aristole) get changed to Graeae
Scoloti, a Schytian tribe, get changed to Scylla
Chalybes get changed to Charybdis
Sicilians or Sicelians get changed to Cyclopes

etc.

--Ionn-Korr 09:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Transliteration[edit]

In:

"Hittites or more recently, Hethites is also the common English name of a Biblical people (חתי or HTY in the consonant-only Hebrew script), who are also called Children of Heth (בני-חת, BNY HT)"

It is true that the Hebrew script does not usually indicate vowels (except for the niqqud); however this system of transliteration is archaic and ambiguous. חתי = ḥeti (or ḥethy), and בני–חת = beni-ḥet (or beny-ḥeth) would be better possible alternatives. It looks just as ridiculous to me as if محمد (Muḥammad) were written MHMD. Just my humble opinion. Khirad 02:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hattic is Indo-European[edit]

I enjoyed reading your article though I do have one thing to say. According to your article Hittite is a non-Indo-European langauge. However, I had googled this and had discovered that Hattic is, however, Indo-European. It is considered a branch that is differentiated from most of the other Indo-European languages but is the link between the Tocharian branch and the Germanic branch of the Indo-European language. Therefore Hattic must be an Indo-European language.

I appreciated the fact that you had read this and I hope you can rewrite the section of your article that says that Hattic is non-Indo-European unless you would like to oppose me with some more facts. If you are right then I shall no longer complain. Thank you. Pleurgon 02:08, 27 January 2006 (PIE)

Presumably you mean Hattic, not Hittite, as this article quite correctly states that Hittite IS an Indo-European language. Hattic does not appear to be; see Hattic language and especially the discussion at Talk:Hattic language... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Biblical Hittites[edit]

Just a few notes here, because I happen to have looked into this subject. As the article notes, in Assyrian inscriptions the Syro-Palestinian area is frequently referred to as "Hatti Land". We also see this in Babylonian inscriptions. Also Seleucid inscription from then time, when the Seleucids reigned from Babylon use the term "Hatti Land". At least two Assyrian inscriptions refers to local people as "Hittites", when these depose a king and put a commoner on the throne. It is possible that people east of the Euphrates called the natives west of Euphrates "Hittites" for a very long period, and therefore the word does not refer to any specific people, but simply to native peoples west of the Euphrates. Note that in Genesis 23, Abraham is a foreigner, and therefore the local people are Hittites, maybe? --FreezBee 12:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks a mess[edit]

First: Why is the History of the Hittites in a separate article? A Merge is needed.
Second: 50% of the material is about the Biblical Hittites. This should rather be put in a shorter end-note or in the article Hittites in the Bible. The Hittite people, history and culture is a subject of its own with rich sources and does not depend of interpretations of the Old Testament.
Third: There is nothing about the Hittite society or culture in the article. The German and French articles look much better!

- I promise not to touch anything for at least a month! --JFK 15:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}}, I don't think anyone is particularly proud of this article, it's just that nobody has really adopted it. dab (ᛏ) 12:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was proud of it, since I had contributed so much to the part in "History of", but a few months ago, a random editor breezed through and chopped it into separate articles. I wouldn't mind seeing that material re-merged here either. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, now that I'm catching up on my watchlist a bit more, it appears you ahave been moving way too fast. I'm concerned that you may be cutting out some schools of thought or at best giving them the short shrift. It's going to take me a long time to sort through all the changes you've made to the associated articles. Please slow down. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, well I'm off now. The "Biblical" section contained very weird and unreferenced things, and I have moved all that was at all tenable to Biblical Hittites. Regarding the identification "dispute", we might need Neo-Hittite, since identification could or could not be with these, but certainly not with the Hittite Empire. In any case, we'll need references if we're going to keep the more far out hypotheses. "History of the Hittites" is still good, your work was not lost. dab (ᛏ) 16:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am asking you to please slow down with these rapid sweeping changes. There is more than enough on my plate now already that will take me all day to sift through, and it is a beautiful day outside. I thought JFK's offer not to change anything for a month was more than reasonable, but you are turning everything upside down by the time I have gone over one change, you have changed some more. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey, I did nothing but straightforward cleanup work on a clearly dilapidated article. The only things I actually cut were unsourced assertions about the "mainstream" opinion on the Biblical Hittites which are not the subject of this article in the first place. You are right about HTY though (but you first removed the y rather than the m) dab (ᛏ) 16:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to intrude in your discussion, but I anyway wondered why not all material on the Biblical Hittites had been moved long time ago :-). I had actually planned on reading through the stuff and see if a merger was possible, but since that's already been done, and it appears ok to me, I'll find somewhere else to mess around :-)

--FreezBee 13:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a month later this article looks much better. But I do believe it would benefit from a merge with History of the Hittites. We do not distinguish between other ancient peoples and their political history, so why write two separate articles of the Hittites? It´s an illogical entry word too.--JFK 17:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luwian homeland[edit]

You don't seem to appreciate that Hittite was probably just a written language by 1200, and that "Luwian" dialects were spoken all over southern Anatolia. If Lydian is really descended from Hittite rather than Luwian (I don't know how certain this is at all), it would be rather a matter of being descended from an "upper class" cultivated dialect vs. a vernacular, than a question of "geographical irony" whatever that is. After all, we know nothing about population movements in the 12th to 11th centuries. Is it "ironical" that Phrygian, a Balkans language, suddenly turns up in Phrygia, and comes to be named after an Anatolian rather than a Balkanese region? I would say it's a simple case of population movement in the wake of the collapsed Empire. dab (ᛏ) 11:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite correct that Luwian dialects were spread all over Anatolia by 1200 or soon thereafter; but the situation a few centuries before that was quite different. Luwian definitely had a "homeland", Hittite scholars think it was in the region they called "Arzawa", in the extreme West or Southwest of Anatolia. This is also where the oldest hieroglyphics spread out from. I suggest you get some good books about Hittite history. All the ones I've read say that Lydian is a descendant of Hittite and not Luwian. This is plainly ironic, because the Lydians were living in the old Luwian area on the West coast, while the Luwians moved into the old Hittite area. THey swopped places. But maybe there is a better word than ironic if that word is proving too much of a stumbling block. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I'll look it up. I am not looking for a dispute with you, but seeing that the Lydian language only arises after 1000, I don't see why it is relevant that before 1200 the distribution of Luwian had been different. Let's just say "remarkable" or something instead of "ironic", ok? dab (ᛏ) 14:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should make some new contributions to the Luwian language article instead, which currently has a clean-up status.--JFK 16:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nesilli(Nesean, hittite language, wasnt a different language than luwi there may be just some difference in pronouncing (or even may not) but obvioustly the hieroglyphs had small difference. Luwian contiued living till 7th century AD (mass Hellenisation of anatolia by Roman empire) the names of lukka(lykian), sidean and some other dialects in Anatolia

Hittites and Dionysus[edit]

Is possible that Nysa, the birth-city of Dionysus was the city Kanesh or Nesa in Eastern Anatolia? Is possible that the etymology of name "Dionysus" is "Deus (the) Nesian" i.e "God the Hittite"?

Note: The real name of the indoeuropean Hittites was "Nesites" or Nesians.

Many Greeks were sure that the cult of Dionysus arrived in Greece from Anatolia, but Greek concepts of where Nysa was, whether set in Anatolia, or in Libya ('away in the west beside a great ocean'), Ethiopia (Herodotus), or Arabia (Diodorus Siculus), are variable enough to suggest that a magical distant land was intended, perhaps named 'Nysa' to explain the God's unreadable name, as the 'god of Nysa.' Apollodorus seems to be following Pherecydes, who relates how the infant Dionysus, god of the grapevine, was nursed by the rain-nymphs, the Hyades at Nysa. The Anatolian Hittites' name for themselves in their own language ("Nesili") was "Nesi," however.

From site:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/dionysus

--IonnKorr 17:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

an interesting idea. All I can say is that there are early dialectal forms reading dien(n)usos, taken seriously as lectio difficilior (dio- would indeed be after dios, by popular etymology), and that Peters (1989) reconstructs *dih1e-snuh2-tyo-. Mycenaean, however, has still earlier di-wo-nu-so. Janda (1998) etymologizes a bahuvrihi "impeller of streams", "who makes the waters flow" (diemai "impel", *sneuh "flow") resulting in a striking parallel to Indra (who is compared to Dionysos already because for obvious reasons of inebriety). This should really all be added properly to the Dionysus article (Janda concludes that Dionysos is really directly cognate to Indra). Your idea seems plausible at first glance, but I think that the theonym is far too archaic (considering its dialectal variants) for such a transparent explanation. The Mycaenean form speaks in your favour, though, and Janda has to spirit it away by assuming an already Mycenaean popular etymology. dab (ᛏ) 18:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First to use Iron?[edit]

Are you kidding me? I always thought the Sumerians were the first to use Iron. Even if they did not, the Egyptian civilisation, starting at 3000BC almost certainly did so (although Iron was brought later than this). 14th century is too late a date for such a discovery used by the mesopatamian states for so long a time.

Contradiction with Hittite language article[edit]

This sentence: The later Lydian language appears to be directly descended from Hittite contradicts a similar sentence in the Hittite language article. It says that The later languages Lycian and Lydian are also attested in Hittite territory. Lycian is a descendant of Luwian. Lydian, on the other hand, is quite distinct and cannot be a descendant of either Hittite or Luwian. I am not sufficiently familiar with this language family to resolve the confliction.--WilliamThweatt 06:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are authors who state that Lydian is a descendant of Hittite, for example, the expert who wrote a book on the Hittites stated this - J. G. Macqueen, The Hittites, and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. I had originally added his view to both articles, but it caused a controversy with editors holding the opposing view, with the result that the article Hittite Language now reads the opposite. I think according to policy we should state both views and exactly which authors hold each view. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If there is on-going debate in acedemia, then both sides should definately be presented. To have one article contradict another is not a compromise, especially when the one points to the other as being the "main article". As I wrote above, I don't work with this language family, so I will leave it to others more competent to add both theories to each article.--WilliamThweatt 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm an Italian PhD student in Anatolian Philology in Pavia, and a researcher in Munich (i normally write something in it.wikipedia.org). I can assure that Macqueen is absolutely obsolete, and that Lycian does descend from Luwian (NOT HITTITE), while Lydian is actually still a problem (I'd say it's Anatolian, but nothing more).--fgiusfredi